"Mr. Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing, and his name is expected to come up only tangentially during the trial."

Sounds a lot like Robert Ray's statement that wrapped up Whitewater...

This Office investigated whether President and Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct related to Madison Guaranty, CMS, or Whitewater Development or had any knowledge of such conduct. This Office determined that the evidence was insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either President or Mrs. Clinton knowingly participated in any criminal conduct involving Madison Guaranty, CMS, or Whitewater Development or knew of such conduct. The evidence relating to their testimony and conduct, in connection with this investigation and other investigations involving the same entities, was also, in the judgment of this Office, insufficient to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that either of them committed any criminal offense, including perjury (18 U.S.C. § 1621) or obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503).

Still, we spent $75 million in taxpayer money to get to the bottom of this matter, and we came up with an act of consensual fellatio instead. Mmm hm.

You have to wonder what the RNC is willing to spend to distort the record on Obama like they did on the Clintons. (And see, after 16 years of constant bombardment with this "Clinton is crooked" meme, they have you denigrating them, adopting GOP talking points. Whee!)

Think it won't happen to Obama? The Republicans are just going to join hands and sing "Kumbaya" and they're going to let a scandal with Obama's name tied to it just slip into the void because they'll be so in awe of Obama's purity and transcendent appeal?

Get real. Or, failing that, I can broker you a deal on some Citigroup subprime holdings... I'd love to sell them to you.

As the Clinton episode clearly demonstrated, you don't have to be guilty of any wrongdoing before the GOP will hang you out to dry - all they need is the innuendo. They're keeping their powder dry as of this minute. Why waste it before there's a presumed nominee to slander?

(You should read Susan McDougal's book sometime, or re-read it if you have. The people that incarcerated her for nearly two years, after she refused to sign a scripted implication of the Clintons, then attempting to steer her into a perjury trap, are some of the same people that you believe that Obama can simply rise above, or ignore like so many mosquitoes.)

Better he lose than become "one of those"...the type who thinks the red phone ad was brilliant or that he is lucky to be a black man.

So, cutting through the passive-aggressive façade, we see clearly that you'd rather support a McCain presidency than to "stoop" to support Clinton.

Me, I'd rather support Obama (even though I think he's a carefully manicured snake oil merchant, and people aren't being realistic about what he will and won't accomplish) than to endorse McCain because of my oh-so-easily-bruised sense of principle. Me, I learned my lesson about "sending a message to Washington" after backing Nader in 2000... "some of us" learned from that experience. Let's call them "adults."

(Wow, this passive-aggressive voice is fun!)

____________________________

With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.

I don't think this will cause Obama any major problems...

I hope you're right, but I fear you underestimate the Republican smear machine.